DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) by DeepSeek or Qwen3.8 Max (0902) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) scores 10.6 points higher (45.4 vs 34.8) but costs 4.6× as much to run the benchmark ($4935 vs $1081; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 Max (0902) when you need intelligence above 34.8, and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) when 34.8 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) | Qwen3.8 Max (0902) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.8 | 45.4 | +30.5% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 30.5% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,081.42 | $4,934.79 | +356.3% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 4.6× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 15.95s | 65.39s | +310.0% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 310.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.44 / $1.32 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max): 30.5% more intelligence, 356.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 310.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max)Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Today's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash-vision/qwen3-8-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash-vision/qwen3-8-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill